Vosur: I just think it doesn't matter which people are in a group, but what kind of emotional virus keeps them together. So I tried to call it egregore, for a lack of a better term.
Last time I heard, this word has been used even for such things as an image of a company, its culture among employees, managers and so on. You have any better idea? Is there already such a word in sociology?

(09-02-2013 11:57 AM)Luminon Wrote: Vosur: I just think it doesn't matter which people are in a group, but what kind of emotional virus keeps them together. So I tried to call it egregore, for a lack of a better term.
Last time I heard, this word has been used even for such things as an image of a company, its culture among employees, managers and so on. You have any better idea? Is there already such a word in sociology?

Kurt Vonnegut coined 'granfalloon'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(09-02-2013 11:36 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote: To me, Atheists fall into two categories: the decieved and the decievers.

The decieved are your average everyday Atheist. These are conditioned from childhood with two mutually contradictory doctrines. One of supposed "unbelief", a rejection of God and Two a hatred of God and his followers (why do you have to hate something that you don't believe exists, Atheists?). This group are only dangerous in numbers but will feign reasonability or even friendliness when outnumbered.

The second group are far more dangerous, these are the leaders of the Atheist movement worldwide. Some of these are inductees into the higher echelons of the belief structure, others are merely talented outsiders. At a glance it's hard to tell the difference, but inevitably one such as Christopher Hitchens spewing out vicious slanders against a God he claims not to believe in would be an insider of the Cult of Atheism.

So ... your misunderstanding of atheists falls into two categories: ignorance & hate and hate & fear. Mighty Jesusy of you there.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(09-02-2013 11:57 AM)Luminon Wrote: Vosur: I just think it doesn't matter which people are in a group, but what kind of emotional virus keeps them together. So I tried to call it egregore, for a lack of a better term.
Last time I heard, this word has been used even for such things as an image of a company, its culture among employees, managers and so on. You have any better idea? Is there already such a word in sociology?

Kurt Vonnegut coined 'granfalloon'.

I have no problem with the concept of a collective group mindset - but this "egregore" thing is supposed to be some autonomous psychic entity and that just puts it too into the realm of some kind of outside controller... I would go with more of an inside controller if I were going to go along with it. But even then, it would feel too much like conspiratorial bullshit.

So, meh. Interesting elaboration, though.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(09-02-2013 11:36 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote: To me, Atheists fall into two categories: the decieved and the decievers.

The decieved are your average everyday Atheist. These are conditioned from childhood with two mutually contradictory doctrines. One of supposed "unbelief", a rejection of God and Two a hatred of God and his followers (why do you have to hate something that you don't believe exists, Atheists?). This group are only dangerous in numbers but will feign reasonability or even friendliness when outnumbered.

The second group are far more dangerous, these are the leaders of the Atheist movement worldwide. Some of these are inductees into the higher echelons of the belief structure, others are merely talented outsiders. At a glance it's hard to tell the difference, but inevitably one such as Christopher Hitchens spewing out vicious slanders against a God he claims not to believe in would be an insider of the Cult of Atheism.

Atheists, by and large, don't hate God. Why do you think they do?

What I dislike is the fact that people believe without evidence. That kind of belief is irrational and dangerous.

Please tell me more about "the higher echelons of the belief structure" because I'd sure like to join.

Personally my feelings towards God are very much similar to my feelings towards Lord Voldemort or Sauron. Or Sylar from Heroes.

Chas, you are an exceptionally intelligent and insightful person. But when you call the faith of hundreds of millions of Hindus "crap" you are not playing on the field of a gentleman. I'm a Christian, and reincarnation is illogical and even inimical to my worldview. But can you make a factual argument once in a while to go with your one line jibes?

Chas, you are an exceptionally intelligent and insightful person. But when you call the faith of hundreds of millions of Hindus "crap" you are not playing on the field of a gentleman. I'm a Christian, and reincarnation is illogical and even inimical to my worldview. But can you make a factual argument once in a while to go with your one line jibes?

What you call a one line jibe I call an accurate assessment. It's not like Christianity isn't telling you all those hundreds of millions of Hindu's aren't going to burn in hell. Where the fuck did that field go?

Chas, you are an exceptionally intelligent and insightful person. But when you call the faith of hundreds of millions of Hindus "crap" you are not playing on the field of a gentleman. I'm a Christian, and reincarnation is illogical and even inimical to my worldview. But can you make a factual argument once in a while to go with your one line jibes?

The fact is that there is no evidence for any religion's supernatural claims. None. Nada. Zilch.

So, sans evidence, it's crap.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Chas, you are an exceptionally intelligent and insightful person. But when you call the faith of hundreds of millions of Hindus "crap" you are not playing on the field of a gentleman. I'm a Christian, and reincarnation is illogical and even inimical to my worldview. But can you make a factual argument once in a while to go with your one line jibes?

As PleaseJesus says, thinking millions of Hindus will burn in Hell forever isn't exactly gentlemanly either.
And as I say, Christian worldview is well-compatible with reincarnation. Or was, until the emperor Justinian and the Church declared it a heresy. Ever heard of Origen of Alexandria ?
Furthermore, IIRC in the times of Jesus the sect of Pharisees also propagated kind of a reincarnation.